Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims recite “a fire panel”. Since the amended claims 1 and 15 recite “a fire panel”, in claim 3, 7, and 20, it needs to be changed to “the fire panel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Zwirn teaches a computing device for monitoring detection and notification for event system failure (Zwirn, Fig. 2), comprising: a processor (Zwirn, Fig. 3, Processor 306); and a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor (Zwirn, Para. 97, A computer includes a processor for performing actions in accordance with instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data), cause the processor to: receive an indication of an event detected by an event system installed in a facility (Zwirn, Para. 34, the control module 110 receives measurement information from one or more sensors 150 in order to determine if a trigger condition has been met (e.g., by determining if the measurements have met or exceeded a particular threshold); Para. 49, the supervisor module 120 applies an electric current to an outgoing wire leading to the notification devices, and an incoming wire from the notification devices provides a pathway for current to return to the supervisor module 120. In some cases, one of more of the notification devices 140a-d can be polarized, such that current can only flow in one direction through it. When the polarization of the current aligns with that of the notification device, current flows through the notification device and activates it. In response, the notification device generates a notification); determine a failure of a device of the event system while the event is occurring (Zwirn, Para. 57, when the electric current applied to an electric circuit is aligned with that of the notification devices (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2 for electric circuit 208b), electric current flows through those notification devices. Thus, electric current also returns to the supervisor module 120. However, if the electric circuit is damaged such that it cannot carry current properly (e.g., due to open or shorted wiring) or only intermittently carries current (e.g., if the conductive elements of the electric circuit provide an intermittent connection), the amount of current that returns of the supervisor module 120 will differ from the expected amount (e.g., zero returning current, or intermittently varying returning current). Thus, based on the electric current that returns from an electric circuit, the supervisor module 120 can determine if the electric circuit is functioning properly) based on a deviation from a logical operation of a fire panel of the event system causing a particular input to the fire panel not to lead to an expected output of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 48, The supervisor module 120 receives the trigger input from the control module 110, and selects one or more of the notification devices 140a-d to activate. When activated, the notification devices 140a-d generate a notification (e.g., an auditory and/or visual notification), informing the user of the condition; Para. 59, if the supervisor module 120 determines that an electric circuit 208a-b is performing abnormally (e.g., due to an absence of returning current or intermittently varying returning current)); and provide a notification of the failure while the event is occurring (Zwirn, Para. 59, if the supervisor module 120 determines that an electric circuit 208a-b is performing abnormally (e.g., due to an absence of returning current or intermittently varying returning current), the supervisor module 120 can transmit a fault signal to the control module 110, indicating this abnormality. In response, the control module 110 can perform an appropriate action. For example, the control module 110 can notify the user of the failure or trouble condition using a display screen, an indicator light, and/or an audio speaker).
In regard to claim 2, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the event is a fire (Zwirn, Para. 25, in response to a hazardous situations such as smoke, fire, or security breaches, an alarm system can notify users through auditory and/or visual warnings).
In regard to claim 4, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the device is an event device of the event system (Zwirn, Zwirn, Para. 67, the supervisor module 120 also monitors the integrity of each notification device 140a-d to determine if it functions correctly. This can be performed, for example, using an end of line resistor).
In regard to claim 5, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the notification include instructions to provide the notification to an alert display associated with a manager of the facility (Zwirn, Para. 59, the control module 110 can notify the user of the failure or trouble condition using a display screen, an indicator light, and/or an audio speaker; Para. 77, the control module 110 can notify users and/or a remote monitoring station in different ways based on the severity of the problem, such that the intrusiveness of the alarm or trouble corresponds to the level of severity of the condition).
In regard to claim 6, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the notification include instructions to provide the notification to a mobile device (Zwirn, Para. 35, The control module 110 can be configured to provide information to authorized day-to-day users (e.g., the residents of a structure), as well as to emergency responders (e.g., police officers and/or firefighters that were dispatched in response to an alarm notification)).
In regard to claim 7, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the notification include instructions to provide the notification to a display of a fire panel of the facility (Zwirn, (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can include a display device (e.g., a display screen, LCD display, and/or LEDs) that presents information regarding the operational parameters of the alarm system 100 (e.g., the power state of the alarm system, the alarm state of the alarm system, the specified trigger conditions, abnormalities, faults, and so forth). the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event at the protected premises and/or utilize the provided information during an emergency situation).
In regard to claim 8, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the notification includes an indication of a location of the device (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event at the protected premises and/or utilize the provided information during an emergency situation; the control module 110 can include a display device (e.g., a display screen, LCD display, and/or LEDs) that presents information regarding the operational parameters of the alarm system 100 (e.g., the power state of the alarm system, the alarm state of the alarm system, the specified trigger conditions, abnormalities, faults, and so forth)).
In regard to claim 9, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication of the event is determined and provided by an event device (Zwirn, Para. 34, the control module 110 receives measurement information from one or more sensors 150 in order to determine if a trigger condition has been met (e.g., by determining if the measurements have met or exceeded a particular threshold). Example sensors 150 include devices such as carbon monoxide sensors, smoke detectors, temperature sensors, door sensors, and motion sensors that are positioned at various locations of a user's house. Each sensor 150 measures particular properties (e.g., a presence and/or concentration of carbon monoxide, a presence of smoke, a temperature, a presence of motion, and so forth), and transmits these measurements to the control module 110).
In regard to claim 10, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication of the event is a system event previously output by application logic (Zwirn, Para. 46, Based on the measurement data received from the sensors 150, the control module 110 determines if one or more trigger conditions are met. The control module 110 can consider different criteria in order to make this determination. For example, the control module 110 can determine if one or more of the received measurements falls outside of an acceptable range (e.g., if the measured concentration of carbon monoxide measurements exceeds a particular threshold concentration, if the measured amount of motion exceeds a particular threshold amount of motion, if the measured amount of smoke exceeds a particular threshold amount of smoke, and so forth)).
In regard to claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 14, Zwirn teaches the medium of claim 11, wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a failure of an end device of the event system (Zwirn, Zwirn, Para. 67, the supervisor module 120 also monitors the integrity of each notification device 140a-d to determine if it functions correctly. This can be performed, for example, using an end of line resistor).
In regard to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 16, Zwirn teaches the system of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of event devices includes an activation sensor (Zwirn, Fig. 2, Supervisor module 120 with processor 306; Para. 87, if the electric circuits 208a-b are not intact, electric current applied to the electric circuits will not return to the signal generators 302a-b. Thus, by measuring the electric current that returns from the electric circuits 208a-b (e.g., using the signal generators 302a-b), the processor 306 can determine if one or more of the electric circuits are not intact, making them non-functional).
In regard to claim 17, Zwirn teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is configured to determine the failure of the portion of the event system responsive to a determination, made by an activation sensor of the event device, that the event device failed to activate during the event (Zwirn, Para. 41, In response, the supervisor module 120 activates the appropriate notification devices 140a-d in order to generate and emit the audible notification devices 140a-d. The supervisor module 120 also monitors each of the notification device 140a-d to determine if they are functioning correctly. If any abnormalities are detected within the notification devices 140a-d, the supervisor module 120 can transmit signals indicating these abnormalities to the control module 110).
In regard to claim 18, Zwirn teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the computing device is configured to assess a respective activation status of a plurality of logic components of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 41, In response, the supervisor module 120 activates the appropriate notification devices 140a-d in order to generate and emit the audible notification devices 140a-d. The supervisor module 120 also monitors each of the notification device 140a-d to determine if they are functioning correctly. If any abnormalities are detected within the notification devices 140a-d, the supervisor module 120 can transmit signals indicating these abnormalities to the control module 110).
In regard to claim 19, Zwirn teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the computing device is configured to compare the activation statuses with expected activation statuses based on cause and effect rules of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 57, the electric circuit is damaged such that it cannot carry current properly (e.g., due to open or shorted wiring) or only intermittently carries current (e.g., if the conductive elements of the electric circuit provide an intermittent connection), the amount of current that returns of the supervisor module 120 will differ from the expected amount (e.g., zero returning current, or intermittently varying returning current). Thus, based on the electric current that returns from an electric circuit, the supervisor module 120 can determine if the electric circuit is functioning properly).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1) in view of Kelly (US 20100238018 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Zwirn teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the device is a fire panel of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event at the protected premises and/or utilize the provided information during an emergency situation).
Zwirn does teach wherein the failure is associated with application logic of the fire panel.
However, Kelly teaches wherein the failure is associated with application logic of the fire panel (Kelly, Para. 24, This configuration is installed such that changes and modifications to the "software" is conducted on the shadow copy and does not interfere with the operation of the system and provides continuous protection to the area of protection. The shadow backup and mirror software may be maintained utilizing any of the typical methods known in the art for maintaining dynamic mirror copies of software. The fire alarm control panel 101 thus has the capability of a fully redundant processor and control computer 112 and 115 that monitors the operating controller for fault or failure and automatically assumes all command and control functionality of the failed processor/controller and generates a fault signal to alert attending personnel of the failure and the assumption of system operations).
Zwirn and Kelly are analogous art because they both pertain to fire alarm system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor fire alarm control panel for fault (as taught by Kelly) in order to alert attending personnel of the failure.
In regard to claim 12, Combination of Zwirn and Kelly teach the medium of claim 11, wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a failure within the fire panel of the event system (Kelly, Para. 24, The fire alarm control panel 101 thus has the capability of a fully redundant processor and control computer 112 and 115 that monitors the operating controller for fault or failure and automatically assumes all command and control functionality of the failed processor/controller and generates a fault signal to alert attending personnel of the failure and the assumption of system operations).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1) in view of Brenner (US 20140240105 A1).
Zwirn does not teach the medium of claim 11, wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a network failure between the fire panel of the event system and an end device of the event system.
However, Brenner teaches wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a network failure between the fire panel of the event system and an end device of the event system (Brenner, Para. 20, The panel receiving the emergency communication is configured to understand this different protocol so that it can, in turn, transmit the emergency message to other panels in the network. As a result, the affected fire panel 22a-e can communicate alarm messages even where the TCP/IP signaling functionality has failed. The disclosed arrangement thus complies with applicable standards such as EN54 and UL Class A which dictate that the alarm system must have the ability to communicate fire, sensor fault, panel fault and system fault conditions even in such a "degraded" mode).
Zwirn and Brenner are analogous art because they both pertain to emergency alarm communications in a fire panel network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect network failure (as taught by Brenner) in order to provide emergency alarm signal when TCP/IP communication failures occur in a networked fire alarm system (Para. 2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1) in view of Thomas et al. (US 20070219645 A1).
In regard to claim 20, Zwirn teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of event devices include: a fire panel (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event); smoke detectors (Zwirn, Para. 34, sensors 150 include devices such as carbon monoxide sensors, smoke detectors); heat detectors (Zwirn, Para. 34 and 36, Example sensors 150 include devices such as carbon monoxide sensors, smoke detectors, temperature sensors).
Zwirn does not specifically teach emergency actuators; access control devices; and ventilators.
However, the concept of having emergency actuators, access control devices, and ventilators as part of the alarm system for a residential structure is well known in the art as also taught by Thomas. Thomas teaches wherein the plurality of event devices include: emergency actuators (Thomas, Para. 95, The actual building and its corresponding model 205 in display 200 and system 190 may incorporate appropriate sensors, indicators and actuators for emergency situations), access control devices (Thomas, Para. 94, Such integrated resources may include, for instance, HVAC building control information, access control systems, security systems, lighting systems, internal communications within the buildings), and ventilators (Thomas, Para. 94, Such integrated resources may include, for instance, HVAC building control information, access control systems, security systems, lighting systems, internal communications within the buildings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have those devices (as taught by Thomas) resulting in predictable result of allowing a person to monitor various devices within a building.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In that remarks, applicant's argues in substance:
Applicant argues: " Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 11, and 15, as amended, recite
"significantly more" than an abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 15, as well as those claims that depend therefrom.”
Examiner’s Response: Based on claim amendments and applicant’s argument, 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues: "Applicant respectfully submits that Zwirn appears to teach determining failures in electrical power within a circuit. However, Zwirn does not teach "determin[ing] a failure of a device of the event system while the event is occurring based on a deviation from a logical operation of a fire panel of the event system causing a particular input to the fire panel not to lead to an expected output of the event system," as recited in claims 1, 11, and 15, as amended. For instance, Zwirn does not teach determining the failures in electrical power within the circuit based on a deviation from a logical operation of a fire panel of the circuit causing a particular input to the fire panel not to lead to an expected output.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully submits that Zwirn teaches the supervisor module 120 receives the trigger input from the control module 110, and selects one or more of the notification devices 140a-d to activate. When activated, the notification devices 140a-d generate a notification (e.g., an auditory and/or visual notification), informing the user of the condition (Para. 48); the supervisor module 120 also monitors the integrity of each notification device 140a-d to determine if it functions correctly (Para. 57). if the supervisor module 120 determines that an electric circuit 208a-b is performing abnormally (e.g., due to an absence of returning current or intermittently varying returning current) (Para. 59). Therefore, Zwirn’s system is also determining failure based on unexpected output by the notification device of the system when the trigger input is received.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689